Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 56905 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

Bae Systems (Operations) Limited (Formerly 

British Aerospace Regional Aircraft): 

Docket No. FAA–2006–25920; 

Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–137–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by October 30, 2006. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to the airplanes 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of 

this AD, certificated in any category, having 

lift spoiler jacks with part number (P/N) 

P308–45–0002, P308–45–0102, or P308–45–

0202. 

(1) All BAE Systems (Operations) Limited 

Model BAe 146–100A, –200A, and –300A 

series airplanes. 

(2) All Model Avro 146–RJ70A, 146–

RJ85A, and 146–RJ100A airplanes. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a review of all 

system components as part of the lifeextension program for the affected airplanes 

that indicated the fatigue life of certain lift 

spoiler jacks cannot be extended from the 

current life limit. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent failure of the lift spoiler jack, and 

consequent increased drag and 

uncommanded roll inputs, which could 

reduce the flightcrew’s ability to control the 

airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Calculating the Life Limit 

(f) Within 18 months after the effective 

date of this AD: Calculate the current life of 

each lift spoiler jack in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of BAE 

Systems (Operations) Limited Modification 

Service Bulletin ISB.27–178, dated January 

14, 2005. 

Note 1: BAE Systems (Operations) Limited 

Modification Service Bulletin ISB.27–178 

refers to the service information listed in 

Table 1 of this AD as additional sources of 

service information for the actions in 

paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD. 

TABLE 1.—ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF SERVICE INFORMATION

This service document— Is an additional source of service information for—

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Modification Service Bulletin 

SB.27–179–70675A, dated January 19, 2005.

Replacing lift spoiler jacks having P/N P308–45–0002 and 0102. 

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.05–

005, Revision 1, dated June 9, 2005.

Calculating the theoretical life when complete utilization records do not 

exist. 

Smiths Service Newsletter P308–27–003, dated March 12, 2004 .......... Resolving anomalies with the P/Ns. 

Replacement 

(g) Within 18 months after the effective 

date of this AD or before the accumulation 

of 55,000 total flight cycles on the lift spoiler 

jack, whichever occurs later: Replace each P/ 

N P308–45–0002, P308–45–0102, or P308–

45–0202 lift spoiler jack with a serviceable 

unit in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) 

Limited Modification Service Bulletin 

ISB.27–178, dated January 14, 2005. 

Thereafter, replace each lift spoiler jack with 

a serviceable unit at intervals not to exceed 

55,000 flight cycles. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested in accordance with 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify the 

appropriate principal inspector in the FAA 

Flight Standards Certificate Holding District 

Office. 

Related Information 

(i) European Aviation Safety Agency 

airworthiness directive 2006–0138, dated 

May 23, 2006, also addresses the subject of 

this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 20, 2006. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E6–15948 Filed 9–27–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 61, 91, 135 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–24981; Notice No. 

06–14] 

RIN 2120–AI82 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

No. XX—Mitsubishi MU–2B Series 

Airplane Special Training, Experience, 

and Operating Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing a 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

(SFAR) applicable to the Mitsubishi 

MU–2B series airplane that would 

create new pilot training, experience, 

and operating requirements. Following 

an increased accident and incident rate 

in the MU–2B series airplane, the FAA 

conducted a safety evaluation of the 

MU–2B series airplane and found that 

changes in the training and operating 

requirements for that airplane are 

needed. These proposed regulations 

would mandate additional operating 

requirements and improve pilot training 

for the MU–2B series airplane. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before October 30, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments to 

Docket Number FAA–2006–24981 using 

any of the following methods: 

• Department of Transportation 

(DOT) Docket Web site: Go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions 

for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
56906 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For more information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. For more 

information, see the Privacy Act 

discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://dms.dot.gov, at any time or to 

Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the 

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete 

Devaris, Federal Aviation 

Administration, General Aviation and 

Commercial Division AFS–820, Room 

835, 800 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

493–4710; facsimile (202) 267–5094; or 

e-mail: Peter.Devaris@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. We also invite comments relating 

to the economic, environmental, energy, 

or federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. We ask that you send 

us two copies of written comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

The docket is available for public 

inspection before and after the comment 

closing date. If you wish to review the 

docket in person, go to the address in 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

You may also review the docket using 

the Internet at the Web address in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Privacy Act: Using the search function 

of our docket Web site, anyone can find 

and read the comments received into 

any of our dockets, including the name 

of the individual sending the comment 

(or signing the comment on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Before acting on this proposal, we 

will consider all comments we receive 

on or before the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change this proposal in light of the 

comments we receive. 

If you want the FAA to acknowledge 

receipt of your comments on this 

proposal, include with your comments 

a preaddressed, stamped postcard on 

which the docket number appears. We 

will stamp the date on the postcard and 

mail it to you. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not file in the docket information 

that you consider to be proprietary or 

confidential business information. Send 

or deliver this information directly to 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. You must mark the 

information that you consider 

proprietary or confidential. If you send 

the information on a disk or CD–ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM 

and also identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is proprietary or 

confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, we do not place it in 

the docket. We hold it in a separate file 

to which the public does not have 

access, and place a note in the docket 

that we have received it. If we receive 

a request to examine or copy this 

information, we treat it as any other 

request under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We 

process such a request under the DOT 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by: 

(1) Searching the Department of 

Transportation’s electronic Docket 

Management System (DMS) Web page 

(http://dms.dot.gov/search); 

(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket number, notice 

number, or amendment number of this 

rulemaking. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA) authority to 

issue rules on aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator to 

issue, rescind, and revise the rules. This 

rulemaking is promulgated under the 

authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, Part A, Air 

Commerce and Safety, Subpart III, 

Safety, Section 44701, General 

Requirements. Under that section, the 

FAA is charged with prescribing 

regulations setting the minimum 

standards for practices, methods, and 

procedures necessary for safety in air 

commerce. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority because it will 

set the minimum level of safety to 

operate the Mitsubishi MU–2B series 

airplane. 

Background 

History 

In the 1950s, Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries (MHI) developed the MU–2B 

series airplane equipped with state-ofthe-art turboprop engines. The MU–2B 

design provided a high-wing loading in 

cruise configuration, the capability of 

carrying nine passengers in a 

pressurized cabin, a highly efficient 

double-slotted Fowler flap system 

designed to run the full span of the wing 

to achieve short field takeoff and 

landing capability, and a spoiler system 

for roll control. MHI produced 764 MU–

2B series airplanes with 397 airplanes 

on the U.S. registry as of August 2005. 

The FAA type certificated the MU–2B 

airplane in November 1965; the type 

certification basis was Civil Aviation 

Regulation (CAR) 10, which required 

compliance with a combination of CAR 

3 standards and special conditions. CAR 

3 standards did not require a cockpit 

checklist for the MU–2B, nor was the 

airplane required to demonstrate the 

ability to complete the takeoff climb 

with one engine inoperable. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 56907 

At first, the MU–2B was popular with 

corporate and business users. MHI 

eventually produced 13 different 

models with two basic categories of 

fuselage length: a short-body and a longbody design. Over the years, corporate 

and business aviation has switched to 

other more modern jet airplanes. As a 

result, the MU–2B is now used mainly 

in air taxi operations (especially cargo 

hauling) and as a personal-use airplane. 

Of the 397 of these airplanes on the U.S. 

registry, the majority are operated under 

the requirements of 14 CFR part 91 as 

personal-use airplanes. As of April 

2006, 64 MU–2B’s were being flown by 

18 different part 135 operators within 

the United States. 

This shift to air-taxi and personalflight operations increased the exposure 

of the MU–2B to certain known hazards: 

more frequent night flights; a 

significantly higher number of hours 

flown than in previous operations; an 

increase in single-pilot operations; and 

operation by pilots who may not be 

getting the level and frequency of 

training that corporate pilots typically 

receive. This shift in use may have 

resulted in an increase in the accident 

rate. Over a 2-year period from 2004–

2005, the MU–2B series airplane has 

been involved in 12 accidents with a 

total of 14 fatalities. 

Statement of the Problem 

In response to the increasing number 

of accidents and incidents involving the 

MHI MU–2B series airplane, the FAA 

began a safety evaluation of the MU–2B 

in July 2005. The FAA, with the 

assistance of pilots and maintenance 

personnel both inside and outside the 

FAA, evaluated the design, operations, 

training, and maintenance of the MU–

2B series airplane to determine if this 

airplane continues to meet the required 

certificated minimum level of safety and 

to determine what steps may be 

necessary to ensure their continued safe 

operation. 

Performing the safety evaluation 

provided an in-depth review and 

analysis of MU–2B series airplane 

accidents, incidents, safety data, pilot 

training requirements, and engine 

reliability. The safety evaluation 

employed new analysis tools that 

provided a more detailed root cause 

analysis of the service history problems 

of the MU–2B than was previously 

possible. 

During the safety evaluation, the FAA 

convened a FAA Flight Standardization 

Board (FSB) to evaluate proposed 

training, checking, and currency 

requirements for pilots operating the 

MU–2B series airplane. The FSB 

reviewed a proposed MHI training 

program, and MHI developed a 

standardized cockpit checklist. The FSB 

conducted a human factors evaluation 

to determine if average pilots, without 

exceptional skills, can perform various 

in-flight procedures during high 

workloads and if automation can reduce 

pilot workloads and enhance safety. A 

copy of the Mitsubishi Model MU–2B 

Flight Standardization Board Report 

dated January 23, 2006, has been placed 

in the Rules Docket (FAA–2006–24981). 

Some of the proposed requirements in 

this SFAR are derived from the FSB 

report. 

During the safety evaluation process, 

more than 20 MU–2B pilot training 

programs were evaluated, including 3 

offered by commercial training 

providers. There was little 

standardization in how these programs 

addressed normal, abnormal, and 

emergency procedures. Only a few 

emphasized the different handling 

characteristics of the MU–2B airplane or 

specialized operational techniques. The 

FAA determined that it is essential that 

all flight training be conducted with a 

single standardized training program 

that reflects piloting procedures as 

found in the Airplane Flight Manual 

(AFM). A standardized flight training 

program that emphasizes proper 

operational technique is critical to the 

safe operation of the MU–2B. 

The results of FAA’s safety evaluation 

concluded that the MU–2B series 

airplane is a complex airplane requiring 

operational techniques not typically 

used in other light turboprop airplanes. 

Operationally, it is more similar to 

turbo-jet airplanes that require a type 

rating. A type rating is not required for 

a pilot-in-command (PIC) to operate the 

MU–2B series airplane because it is not 

turbo-jet powered and is not considered 

a large aircraft [see 14 CFR 61.31(a)]. 

The FAA could require a type rating by 

amending the type certification of the 

MU–2B. However, a type rating would 

not require annual or bi-annual 

recurrent training. The FAA determined 

that a type rating alone would not 

achieve the desired level of safety. 

Mandating training requirements that go 

beyond the requirements of a type rating 

was determined to be necessary to 

ensure the safe operation of this 

airplane. 

The Safety Evaluation Team and the 

FSB concluded that safe operation of the 

airplane requires initial and annual 

recurrent pilot training. This training 

must be standardized to be effective. 

MHI developed a standardized flight 

training program. The FAA evaluated a 

draft of this training program during the 

FSB process. The FSB determined that 

use of the flight training program 

provided a significant increase in safety. 

MHI further refined the training 

program and submitted it to the FAA for 

approval. The FAA granted initial 

approval to the MHI MU–2B Training 

Program (Part Number YET 05301) in 

July 2006. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 

of America (MHIA) distributed Revision 

1 of the training program for use by the 

operators of the MU–2B in August of 

2006. Training also commenced in 

August, 2006. The FAA-approved MHI 

MU–2B Training Program (Part Number 

YET 05301) is considered to be 

compliant with the training 

requirements of this proposed SFAR 

and most of the recommendations of the 

FSB report. Credit will be given for 

training conducted prior to the effective 

date of the proposed SFAR only if that 

training is conducted in accordance 

with the MHI MU–2B Training Program 

(Part Number YET 05301). A copy of 

this training program has been placed in 

the DOT docket for this rulemaking. The 

FAA will seek approval from the 

Director of the Federal Register to 

incorporate by reference the MHI MU–

2B training program (Part Number YET 

0530) in the SFAR. 

This proposal allows certain training 

to be conducted in a flight training 

device (FTD) or the MU–2B airplane. 

Any FTD training, in order to meet the 

requirements of this SFAR, must be 

conducted in a Level 5 or higher FTD 

that has been specifically approved by 

the FAA as an MU–2B training device. 

The FTD must be representative of an 

MU–2B cockpit and have flight 

characteristics similar to a MU–2B 

airplane. 

The FAA reviewed the certification 

requirements for the MU–2B and found 

that it met the applicable certification 

basis. However, the airplane was type 

certificated before the requirement for a 

standardized cockpit checklist was in 

effect. Therefore, operators of the MU–

2B have developed and use their own 

non-standard, non-FAA approved 

checklists. This lack of standardization 

generates a variety of operational 

procedures. During the safety evaluation 

the FAA received requests for a 

standardized checklist, developed by 

the manufacturer, found acceptable to 

the FAA, and reflective of the best 

operational procedures for this model 

airplane. The FAA’s test pilots 

evaluated a standardized checklist 

developed by MHI, and after 

modification by the manufacturer, 

found it to be a significant safety 

improvement. A standardized cockpit 

checklist that emphasizes proper 

operational procedures is critical to the 

safe operation of the MU–2B series 

airplane. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
56908 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

MHI has developed a standardized 

checklist for the Mitsubishi MU–2B–60 

model. This checklist has been accepted 

by the FAA’s MU–2B Flight 

Standardization Board. MHI is in the 

process of developing checklists for the 

remaining models. All checklists are 

expected to be completed by December 

31, 2006. A copy of the accepted 

Mitsubishi MU–2B–60 checklist has 

been placed in the Rules Docket. This 

checklist addresses the most complex 

model of the MU–2B airplane. The other 

checklists are expected to be similar in 

content where applicable. These 

checklists will be consistent with 

known configurations of the airplane as 

originally delivered or later modified 

and incorporated by MHI into the AFM. 

Copies of the other checklists will be 

posted to the docket as they become 

available. 

The FAA is proposing that all 

operators have onboard the airplane, 

accessible for each flight at the pilot 

station, a MHI MU–2B series airplane 

checklist accepted by the MU–2B Flight 

Standardization Board or other MU–2B 

series airplane checklist that has been 

accepted by the MU–2B Flight 

Standardization Board. This checklist 

must be used by the flight crewmembers 

when operating the airplane. 

Federal aviation regulations allow 

operators to operate their aircraft in 

accordance with an approved AFM. 

Some aircraft are operating today with 

the original AFM. These same AFMs 

have been revised numerous times; 

however, some operators may not have 

revised their AFMs, nor elected to 

incorporate the later revisions from the 

manufacturer. Many of these revisions 

were prepared to enhance safe operation 

of the MU–2B and were a direct result 

of the Special Certification Reviews and 

icing studies conducted by the FAA in 

1984 and 1997. The FAA is proposing 

that all operators have onboard the 

airplane, and accessible during each 

flight at the pilot station, a specific 

revision level of the AFM (see Table 1 

in the SFAR). The proposed rule would 

allow the operator to have onboard the 

airplane, and accessible for each flight 

at the pilot station, FAA-approved 

revisions issued after the effective date 

of the SFAR. Copies of the AFMs have 

been placed in the DOT docket for 

review by the public. The FAA will seek 

approval from the Director of the 

Federal Register to incorporate by 

reference the MHI MU–2B Airplane 

Flight Manuals in the SFAR. 

A pilot workload evaluation was 

conducted to determine if safety would 

be enhanced with the use of an 

autopilot during single-pilot instrument 

flight rules (IFR) operations. Many of 

the recent accidents involved single 

pilot night-time IFR operations in highdensity terminal areas with high pilot 

workloads. Using techniques developed 

by the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, testing showed a 

significant reduction in single pilot 

workload and stress and improved 

performance when an autopilot was 

used in actual flight conditions. In 

addition, the FAA has determined that 

use of an autopilot provides a level of 

safety comparable to a two-pilot crew 

and therefore does not propose 

requiring a second crew member. The 

FAA invites comment on whether there 

are advantages to requiring two crew 

members that exceed the safety benefits 

of requiring an autopilot. 

The safety evaluation also looked at 

maintenance requirements for the MU–

2B series airplane and recommended 

that all maintenance performed on the 

MU–2B must be done using current 

maintenance manuals and the latest 

instructions for continued 

airworthiness. Existing rules, 14 CFR 

43.13 and 65.81, already address 

maintenance requirements and the need 

to use the current and correct manuals. 

Including this recommendation in the 

SFAR would result in redundant 

regulations. Therefore, the FAA is not 

proposing any new maintenance 

requirements in this SFAR. However, in 

November of 2005, the FAA issued 

Flight Standards Information Bulletin 

for Airworthiness 05–11 (FSAW), which 

focused on maintenance procedures. 

The FSAW required that all FAA 

maintenance inspectors with oversight 

of MU–2B operators inspect a variety of 

maintenance items and procedures and 

report their findings. This FSAW is still 

active but the actions required by it are 

near completion. The FAA has noted a 

high level of compliance with existing 

rules and no unsafe conditions have 

been identified. The FAA continues to 

monitor the airworthiness of the MU–2B 

series airplane and will take appropriate 

action if an unsafe condition is 

identified. 

The MU–2B Series Airplane Safety 

Evaluation Report of December 2005 

recommended that the FAA begin a 

rulemaking action to address several of 

the recommendations within the report. 

Based on the safety evaluation 

recommendations, the FAA proposes an 

SFAR addressing the following items: 

—Specific pilot training and testing of 

pilot skills. 

—A standardized, user-friendly pilot 

checklist. 

—A requirement to update the AFM. 

A copy of the safety evaluation report 

has been placed in the Rules Docket 

(FAA–2006–24981) for this rulemaking. 

The Proposed Regulation 

Applicability. The proposed SFAR 

would apply to all persons who operate 

the MU–2B airplane including those 

who manipulate the controls, or act as 

pilot-in-command (PIC). The proposed 

SFAR also applies to those persons who 

provide pilot training for the Mitsubishi 

MU–2B series airplane. The 

requirements proposed in this SFAR 

would be in addition to the 

requirements in 14 CFR parts 61, 91, 

and 135. 

Compliance. The FAA proposes that 

180 days after the effective date of the 

final rule, no person may act as PIC, 

manipulate the controls, or provide 

pilot training on a Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane unless that person meets 

the applicable requirements of the 

proposed SFAR. The FAA believes that 

180 days should give the affected 

operators of this airplane time to receive 

the necessary training and meet the 

requirements of the SFAR. While the 

FAA realizes that 180 days is a short 

period of time, the agency must balance 

the compliance timeframe with the need 

to act quickly to prevent further 

accidents. 

Required Pilot Training. The FAA 

proposes that no person may 

manipulate the controls or act as PIC of 

a Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane for 

flight unless the applicable 

requirements for ground and flight 

training on initial/transition, 

requalification, recurrent, or differences 

pilot training specified in Mitsubishi 

Heavy Industries MU–2B Training 

Program (Part Number YET 05301, 

dated July 27, 2006, Revision 1, or a 

FAA-approved revision issued after the 

effective date of this SFAR) are 

completed and that person’s logbook 

has been endorsed by a certificated 

flight instructor meeting the 

qualifications for MU–2B flight 

instructors listed in the SFAR. 

As used in the proposed SFAR, 

initial/transition training would apply 

to any pilot without documented MU–

2B pilot operating experience in the last 

2 years. Requalification training would 

apply to any pilot who has documented 

MU–2B operating experience in the last 

2 years, but does not have documented 

training to an FAA-approved training 

program for the MU–2B meeting the 

eligibility requirements of this SFAR for 

recurrent training. Recurrent training 

would apply to any pilot who has 

completed and has documented training 

to an FAA-approved training program 

for the MU–2B that meets the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 56909 

requirements of this SFAR in the 

preceding 12 months and is MU–2B 

current in accordance with this SFAR. 

Differences training would apply to any 

pilot who operates more than one MU–

2B model. Differences training is in 

addition to the requirements for initial/ 

transition, requalification, or recurrent 

training. If for example, a person 

operates two models of the MU–2B, that 

person would be required to receive 

differences training between these 

models one time only. If a person 

intended to operate three or more 

models of the MU–2B, additional onetime difference training would be 

required. 

The FAA proposes that no person 

may manipulate the controls or act as 

PIC of a Mitsubishi MU–2B series 

airplane for the purpose of flight unless 

that person completes annual recurrent 

pilot training in the Special Emphasis 

Items, pages 4 and 5, and all items listed 

in Training Course Final Phase Check, 

Appendix A, as specified in Mitsubishi 

Heavy Industries MU–2B Training 

Program (Part Number YET 05301, 

dated July 27, 2006, Revision 1, or a 

FAA-approved revision issued after the 

effective date of this SFAR). This 

includes training in the following areas 

of operation: takeoff and landing, steep 

turns and stalls, emergency operations 

(various scenarios with one engine not 

providing thrust), both precision 

approach and non-precision approach 

procedures for instrument rated pilots, 

and areas of special emphasis (stall 

awareness, minimum controllable 

airspeed awareness, icing conditions, 

and airspeed management). The pilot 

must satisfactorily complete the training 

and that pilot’s logbook must be 

endorsed by a certificated flight 

instructor meeting the qualifications for 

flight instructors listed in the proposed 

SFAR. 

The existing rule, 14 CFR 135.351(c), 

currently allows a 14 CFR 135.293 

check be substituted for recurrent flight 

training. Because of the importance of 

recurrent training, the exception to 

recurrent training as described in 14 

CFR 135.351(c) would not be allowed 

for the MU–2B airplane. Accordingly, 

the FAA has calculated the full 

estimated cost associated with recurrent 

training in the initial regulatory 

evaluation for the proposed rule. The 

FAA notes that some of the recurrent 

training requirements could be 

incorporated into portions of the 

existing 135.293 check. Thus, the cost of 

recurrent training would be offset to 

some extent by a reduction in costs 

associated with the 135.293 check. 

Satisfactory completion of a flight 

review to satisfy 14 CFR 61.56 is valid 

for operation of an MU–2B only if that 

flight review is conducted in an MU–2B 

series airplane. A flight review 

completed in the MU–2B series airplane 

satisfies the requirement for the flight 

review in 14 CFR 61.56 for all other 

aircraft except the Robinson R22/R44 

[see SFAR 73, Section 2(c)]. 

Satisfactory completion of an FAA 

Wings Program, as described in 14 CFR 

61.56(e) and Advisory Circular Number 

61–91H, may not be substituted for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

annual recurrent flight training. 

Depending on the type of training 

required, credit may be given for 

training performed in the airplane, flight 

training device, or simulator as 

described in the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

Training Program, Part Number YET 

05301, Revision 1, dated July 27, 2006. 

The FAA would require that all 

training conducted in the MU–2B series 

airplane be performed using the 

procedures and techniques as described 

in the applicable MHI Airplane Flight 

Manual, (see Table 1) and using a MHI 

MU–2B checklist accepted by the MU–

2B Flight Standardization Board or 

other MU–2B series airplane checklist 

that has been accepted by the MU–2B 

Flight Standardization Board. The 

proposed rule would allow the use of 

FAA-approved AFM revisions issued 

after the effective date of the SFAR. 

Aeronautical Experience. The FAA 

Safety Evaluation Team and the FSB 

determined that the MU–2B is more 

complex than most light twin engine 

airplanes and other light turbine 

airplanes within its class. Safe operation 

of the MU–2B requires a high degree of 

pilot skill and discipline typically found 

in type-rated, transport category 

airplanes. The FAA determined that a 

minimum standard of pilot experience 

in multiengine airplanes would help to 

improve safety for the MU–2B. The FAA 

proposes that no person may act as PIC 

of a Mitsubishi MU–2B airplane for 

purposes of flight unless that person has 

logged a minimum of 100 flight hours of 

PIC time in multiengine airplanes. 

Flight Instructors. The FSB 

determined that strict adherence to the 

normal, abnormal, and emergency flight 

procedures are critical to the safe 

operation of the MU–2B. The MU–2B 

has many differences from comparable 

multiengine airplanes. Differences 

include the airplane design, with full 

span wing spoilers and high drag gear 

doors with lengthy cycle times. Analysis 

and review of common operating 

practices show that application of 

procedures for other multiengine 

airplanes can be detrimental when 

performed in the MU–2B. For example, 

many multiengine airplane curriculums 

teach a procedure for engine failure just 

after takeoff that requires the pilot to 

apply maximum power, retract the 

landing gear and flaps, identify and 

verify the failed engine, and then fix or 

feather the engine. However, if a pilot 

applies this technique to the MU–2B 

series airplane, it would be contrary to 

operational procedures developed by 

MHI. The resulting negative transfer of 

knowledge can impede performance 

during abnormal and emergency 

situations. Effective instruction in the 

MU–2B requires a thorough 

understanding of all commonly taught 

multiengine procedures as well as the 

differences between them and those for 

the MU–2B. Understanding the 

differences between these techniques 

can only come from extensive 

operational experience in the MU–2B as 

well as other multiengine airplanes. The 

FAA proposes that no flight instructor 

may provide instruction or conduct a 

flight review in a Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane unless that instructor 

meets the flight instructor experience 

and currency requirements of this SFAR 

before giving flight instruction in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane. All 

flight instructors (Airplane) who 

provide flight training in the Mitsubishi 

MU–2B series airplane would be 

required to have a minimum total PIC 

time of 2000 flight hours, 800 hours PIC 

in multiengine airplanes, and 300 hours 

PIC time in the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane. Fifty flight hours of 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane PIC 

experience must have been within the 

last 12 months. Flight instructors 

(Simulator or Flight Training Device) 

would be required to have a minimum 

total PIC time of 2,000 flight hours and 

800 hours PIC in multiengine airplanes. 

For flight instructors (Simulator or 

Flight Training Device), 50 flight hours 

of Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

PIC experience, or 50 hours providing 

simulator or flight training device 

instruction, must have been within the 

last 12 months. 

The FAA proposes that for the 

purpose of flight checking, designated 

pilot examiners, training center 

evaluators, and check airmen must have 

completed the appropriate qualification 

in the Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

in accordance with sections 3 and 6 of 

this SFAR. The FAA believes that an 

effective evaluation of an airman’s skill 

can only be assessed by individuals 

with a high degree of knowledge of the 

latest techniques, training profiles, and 

procedures for the MU–2B. 

The FAA proposes that designated 

pilot examiners and check airmen must 

have 100 hours PIC flight time in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane and 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
56910 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

must maintain currency in accordance 

with section 6 of this SFAR. The FSB 

determined this to be a minimum 

acceptable experience level for 

individuals administering practical tests 

and other demonstrations of 

proficiency. 

All training conducted in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must 

be done in accordance with the 

procedures and techniques as described 

in the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU–

2B Training Program (Part Number YET 

05301, dated July 27, 2006, Revision 1, 

or a FAA-approved revision issued after 

the effective date of this SFAR) and the 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries FAAapproved Airplane Flight Manual. 

The FAA proposes that all training 

conducted in the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane must be done using a 

MHI MU–2B checklist accepted by the 

MU–2B Flight Standardization Board or 

other MU–2B checklist that has been 

accepted by the MU–2B Flight 

Standardization Board, and identified in 

section 7, paragraph (c) of the 

operational requirements of the 

proposed SFAR. 

Currency Requirements and Flight 

Review. The complexity of the airplane 

and differences in operational 

procedures requires that recurrent 

training and testing be done only in the 

MU–2B. During the safety evaluation 

and FSB evaluation, the exclusiveness 

of the MU–2B for recurrent training and 

testing was examined. Through this 

process the FAA determined that all 

recurrent training, testing, and flight 

reviews must be conducted in the MU–

2B. Therefore, the FAA is proposing the 

landing currency requirements of 14 

CFR 61.57 must be maintained in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane. 

Landings in any other multiengine 

airplanes would not meet the landing 

currency requirements for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane. 

Landings in either short-or long-body 

Mitsubishi MU–2B model airplanes may 

be credited toward landing currency in 

both MU–2B model groups. 

The FAA has determined that 

instrument currency does not need to be 

maintained exclusively in the MU–2B. 

Therefore, instrument experience 

obtained in other category and class of 

airplanes may be used to satisfy the 

instrument currency requirements of 14 

CFR 61.57. 

Satisfactory completion of the flight 

review required by 14 CFR 61.56 would 

be valid for operation of an MU–2B 

series airplane only if that flight review 

is conducted in an MU–2B airplane. 

Satisfactory completion of a flight 

review in the MU–2B airplane satisfies 

the requirements of 14 CFR 61.56 for 

other airplanes. 

Operating Requirements. The safety 

evaluation team and the FSB conducted 

a pilot workload evaluation to 

determine if safety would be enhanced 

with the use of an autopilot during 

single-pilot IFR operations. Many of the 

recent accidents involved single pilot 

IFR operations in high-density terminal 

areas, with high workloads conducted at 

night. Using techniques developed by 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, testing showed a 

significant reduction in single pilot 

workload and stress and improved 

performance when an autopilot, a 

standardized user-friendly pilot 

checklist, and revised AFM procedures 

were used in actual flight conditions. 

The FAA proposes the following 

additional operational requirements: 

1. No person may conduct single-pilot 

operations under IFR, or in IFR 

conditions, or night VFR conditions in 

the Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

unless that airplane has a functioning 

autopilot. 

2. No person may operate a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

unless a copy of a specific revision level 

of the AFM Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) listed in 

the SFAR is carried on board the 

airplane and accessible for each flight at 

the pilot station. The proposed rule 

would allow the operator to have 

onboard the airplane, and accessible for 

each flight at the pilot station, a FAAapproved revisions issued after the 

effective date of the SFAR. 

3. No person may operate a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

unless a MHI MU–2B checklist accepted 

by the MU–2B Flight Standardization 

Board, or other MU–2B series airplane 

checklist that has been accepted by the 

MU–2B Flight Standardization Board, is 

carried on board the airplane and the 

checklist is accessible during each flight 

at the pilot station. This checklist must 

be used by the flight crewmembers 

when operating the airplane. 

Alternatives Considered 

The FAA considered the following 

alternatives to the approach set forth in 

the proposed SFAR: 

1. Take no action. The FAA discarded 

this alternative because it would not 

enhance safety. Among other things, the 

FAA proposes to enhance safety by 

creating new pilot training, experience, 

and operating requirements. Following 

an increased accident and incident rate 

in the MU–2B series airplane, the FAA 

conducted a safety evaluation of the 

MU–2B series airplane and found that 

changes in the training and operating 

requirements for that airplane are 

needed. 

2. Prohibit all operations of the MU–

2B series airplane within the National 

Airspace System. The FAA has 

determined there is no justification to 

ground the airplane. The airplane meets 

its original type certification basis as 

found in three type certification 

analyses (Special Certification Reviews 

conducted in 1984, 1997, and the Safety 

Evaluation of 2005 that found the 

airplane complies with the applicable 

certification rules). 

3. Propose an SFAR and in addition, 

require an aircraft type rating for the 

MU–2B but remove requalification 

training. The FAA rejected this 

alternative because it would not meet 

the FAA’s goal of ensuring that all MU–

2 pilots receive continued training in 

the correct procedures for normal, 

abnormal, and emergency operations. 

4. Propose an SFAR, and in addition, 

require a second pilot. Requiring a 

second pilot for all MU–2B series 

airplanes would be a more costly option 

than the proposed SFAR training and 

autopilot requirements (single-pilot IFR 

operations would be required to have a 

functioning autopilot). An operator has 

the option of running a two-pilot crew 

to enhance safety, but the FAA would 

not require it. 

Conclusion 

To protect the flying public, the FAA 

finds that many of the recommendations 

of the safety evaluation and the FSB 

report should be incorporated into an 

SFAR that applies to all operations of 

the Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

conducted within the National Airspace 

System of the United States. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposal contains the following 

new information collection 

requirements. 

Title: Mitsubishi MR–2 Series 

Airplane Special Training, Experience, 

and Operating Requirements. 

Summary: This SFAR would create 

new pilot training, experience, and 

operating requirements for the MU–2 

airplane. Following an increased 

accident and incident rate in the MU–

2B series airplane, the FAA conducted 

a safety evaluation of the MU–2B series 

airplane and found that changes in the 

training and operating requirements for 

that airplane are needed. These 

proposed regulations would mandate 

additional operating requirements and 

improve pilot training for the MU–2B 

series airplane. 

Use of: This proposal would support 

the information needs of the FAA to 

determine that each pilot has received 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 56911 

the appropriate training in the MU–2 

airplane. 

Respondents: The respondents to this 

proposed information requirement are 

pilots who receive the training required 

by this SFAR. The FAA estimates that 

there are about 600 MU–2 pilots in the 

United States. 

Frequency: The FAA estimates each of 

these 600 pilots would complete the 

information required to verify training 

with a logbook and final phase check 

form endorsement by the flight 

instructor. Thus, the annual frequency 

of information requirements is 1200. 

Annual Burden Estimate: Because 

these endorsements are expected to take 

only 5 minutes each, the total hour 

burden is 100 hours. (5 minutes × 600 

pilots × 2 = 100 hours). The total costs, 

based on an instructor salary of $50.00 

per hour is $8,606. 

The agency is soliciting comments to: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information requirement is necessary for 

the proper performance of the functions 

of the agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are required to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), the FAA has submitted the 

information requirements associated 

with this proposal to the Office of 

Management and Budget for its review. 

Individuals and organizations may 

submit comments on the information 

collection requirement by November 27, 

2006, and should direct them to the 

address listed in the ADDRESSES section 

of this document. Comments also 

should be submitted to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, New Executive Building, Room 

10202, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20053, Attention: Desk 

Officer for FAA. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

number for this information collection 

will be published in the Federal 

Register, after the Office of Management 

and Budget approves it. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed rules. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

We suggest readers seeking greater 

detail read the full initial regulatory 

evaluation, we have placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking (FAA–2006–

24981). 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule: 

(1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) 

is not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) would not have a significant 

effect on international trade; and (6) 

would not impose an unfunded 

mandate on state, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector by 

exceeding the threshold identified 

above. These analyses are summarized 

below. 

Total Costs and Benefits of this Rule 

The estimated cost of this proposed 

rule is about $40.6 million ($27.1 

million in present value terms), and the 

estimated benefit is about $85.4 million 

($55.4 million in present value terms). 

More detailed benefit and cost 

information is provided below. The 

FAA seeks comments on these 

estimates. 

Who Is Potentially Affected by this Rule 

All pilots and operators of the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane are 

affected by this rulemaking. (This also 

includes flight instructors, designated 

pilot examiners, training center 

evaluators, and check airmen.) 

Assumptions: 

• Discount rate—7%. Sensitivity 

analysis was performed on 3% and 7%. 

• Period of Analysis—2008 through 

2017. 

• Compliance with the final rule will 

be required 180 days after the rule’s 

effective date. 

Benefits of this Rule 

We estimate the proposed rule would 

provide benefits of $85.4 million (or 

$55.4 million in present value) from 

2008 through 2017 in 2006 dollars. In 

the absence of a new rule, it is likely 

that future accidents will occur on MU–

2B airplanes in a manner similar to 

what has happened in the past. A key 

benefit of the proposed rule would be 

the avoidance of these accidents. 

Costs of this Rule 

The FAA estimates the compliance 

costs of this proposed rule to be about 

$40.6 million (or $27.1 million in 

present value). The table below shows a 

breakdown of these total costs by 

category. 

Total Costs 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
56912 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

1AFS–260; April 5, 2006 and ‘‘Review of 

Aviation Accidents and Incidents involving the 

Mitsubishi MU–2 Aircraft’’, October 2005; 

NASDAC. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a proposed or final rule is not expected 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 RFA 

provides that the head of the agency 

may so certify and a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. The 

certification must include a statement 

providing the factual basis for this 

determination, and the reasoning should 

be clear. 

The FAA believes that this proposal 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The purpose of this analysis is 

to provide the reasoning underlying the 

FAA determination. 

Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, the 

analysis must address: 

• Description of reasons the agency is 

considering the action. 

• Statement of the legal basis and 

objectives for the proposed rule. 

• Description of the record keeping 

and other compliance requirements of 

the proposed rule. 

• All Federal rules that may 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 

proposed rule. 

• Description and an estimated 

number of small entities to which the 

proposed rule will apply. 

• Analysis of small firms’ ability to 

afford the proposed rule. 

• Analysis of disproportionate 

impact. 

• Analysis of competitive impact. 

• Estimation of the potential for 

business closures. 

• Description of the alternatives 

considered. 

Under Title 49 of the United States 

Code, the FAA Administrator is 

required to consider the following 

matters, among others, as being in the 

public interest: 

• Assigning, maintaining, and 

enhancing safety and security as the 

highest priorities in air commerce. [See 

49 U.S.C. 40101(d)(1).] 

• Promoting the safe flight of civil 

aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 

regulations that are necessary for safety 

[See 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5).] 

• Additionally, it is the FAA 

Administrator’s statutory duty to carry 

out his or her responsibilities ‘‘in a way 

that best tends to reduce or eliminate 

the possibility or recurrence of 

accidents in air transportation.’’ [See 49 

U.S.C. 44701(c).] 

Accordingly, this proposed rule 

would amend Title 14 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations to address the 

increasing number of accidents 

involving the Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries America MU–2B series 

airplane. The proposed rule would 

require additional special training, 

aeronautical experience, and operating 

requirements for pilots that operate the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B. 

A. Projected Reporting, Record 

Keeping and Other Requirements. 

We expect no more than minimal new 

reporting and record-keeping 

compliance requirements to result from 

this proposed rule. 

B. Overlapping, Duplicative, or 

Conflicting Federal Rules. 

We are unaware that the proposed 

rule will overlap, duplicate or conflict 

with existing Federal Rules. 

C. Estimated Number of Small Firms 

Potentially Impacted. 

Using the size standards from the 

Small Business Administration for Air 

Transportation and Aircraft 

Manufacturing, we have defined 

companies as small entities if they have 

fewer than 1,500 employees. 

We considered the economic impact 

on small-business part 91, 121, and 135 

operators. The MU–2B’s operating in 

part 91 are not for hire or flown for 

profit. The part 91 operators primarily 

operate the MU–2B either as a personaluse airplane or companies operate them 

where aviation is not their primary 

business. We found no part 121 

operators of the MU–2B airplane. 

We then obtained a list of part 91 and 

135 MU–2B operators 1 from the Flight 

Standards division of the FAA and from 

the FAA Aviation Safety Information 

Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) Center 

(formerly known as the National 

Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center 

(NASDAC)). 

Using information provided by the 

World Aviation Directory and 

ReferenceUSA, operators that are 

subsidiary businesses of larger 

businesses and businesses with more 

than 1,500 employees were eliminated 

from the list of small entities. For the 

remaining businesses, we obtained 

company revenue from those two 

sources. In many cases the data was not 

public. 

We were unable to obtain 

employment or annual revenue data for 

the following MU–2B operators: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALSEP28SE06.291</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 56913 

The methodology discussed above 

resulted in the following list of 14 U.S. 

MU–2B operators, with less than 1,500 

employees, who operate 61 airplanes. 

The FAA has determined that it is 

essential that all flight training be 

conducted per a single standardized 

training program that reflects piloting 

procedures as found in the Airplane 

Flight Manual (AFM). In order to 

accomplish this, the companies that 

train pilots would themselves have to 

train their current MU–2B instructors to 

this new standard. Based on our 

discussions with MU–2B pilot training 

centers we established that they would 

continue providing their MU–2B 

instructors with the latest training 

available. We believe that most MU–2B 

pilot training centers are small business 

entities according to the Small Business 

Administration for Air Transportation. 

We also believe the rule would result in 

offsetting training revenue for the MU–

2B pilot training centers. 

D. Cost and Affordability for Small 

Entities. 

To assess the cost impact to small 

business part 91 and 135 MU–2B 

operators, we estimated the pilot 

training costs and the number of pilots 

per operator that needed training. The 

training costs have a large and 

immediate impact on the operator. As 

noted in the cost section of this 

evaluation, the following table 

summarized the per pilot costs over the 

10-year analysis period: 

Because insurance companies 

currently require all businesses to 

provide training for their MU–2B pilots, 

we determined the 14 U.S. small entity 

companies identified above would incur 

an additional $12,604 requalification 

cost and annual recurrent training costs 

of $1,937 per pilot. We assumed every 

company would have two pilots for 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALSEP28SE06.292</GPH> EP28SE06.293</GPH> EP28SE06.296</GPH>
56914 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

each MU–2B they operate. We are also 

assuming that the final rule will become 

effective in two years. On that basis, the 

present value of the pilot training cost 

for an MU–2B pilot would be about 

$22,032, or an annual average training 

cost of $2,203 (discounted at seven 

percent). 

We estimated each operator’s total 

compliance cost by multiplying the 

average annual discounted pilot training 

cost by the number of MU–2B pilots 

employed. We estimate the number of 

pilots by assuming each firm employs 

two pilots per MU–2B airplane. Next, 

we took this product and multiplied it 

by the number of MU–2B airplanes the 

small business operator currently has in 

their fleet. We then measured the 

economic impact on small entities by 

dividing the estimated average annual 

present value compliance cost for their 

fleet by the small entity’s annual 

revenue. For this analysis, if the cost of 

compliance exceeds two percent of an 

operator’s annual operating revenue, we 

determine that as a significant economic 

impact. As shown in the following table, 

the pilot training cost is estimated to be 

greater than two percent of annual 

revenues for three small entity 

operators. 

Thus, the FAA determined that small 

entities would be significantly affected 

by the proposed rule. 

E. Business Closure Analysis. 

For MU–2B operators, the ratio of 

average annual present-value costs to 

annual revenue shows that three of the 

14 U.S. small business air operator firms 

analyzed would have ratios in excess of 

two percent, and such a ratio may have 

a significant financial impact when this 

proposed rule becomes effective. The 

remaining operators have an average 

annual present-value cost to annual 

revenue ratio less than two percent. To 

fully assess whether this proposed rule 

would force a small entity into 

bankruptcy requires more financial 

information than is readily available. 

We performed a cost of compliance 

analysis by dividing the economic 

impact costs by the average value of the 

fleet for each part 135 operator. We first 

conducted an Internet search for MU–

2Bs on the market. From this search we 

obtained the selling price for 19 MU–

2Bs currently on the market. Summing 

the 19 MU–2B’s selling price, then 

dividing by 19, we computed the 

average selling price of $510,250. In 

order to validate this average cost, we 

then computed a weighted average price 

by age and hours flown. These weighted 

average prices were both within 2.5% of 

the average selling price. The following 

table shows the results of the average 

selling price and the weighted average 

price: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALSEP28SE06.294</GPH> EP28SE06.295</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 56915 

We calculated the economic impact 

costs by dividing the product of the 

average annual present value cost per 

pilot by the number of pilots by the 

product of the average selling price by 

the number of MU–2Bs the small-entity 

operates. As shown in the following 

table, the pilot training costs of the 

small entities is estimated to be 0.86 

percent of the average selling price of 

the small entities fleet. 

We do not believe that these 

additional compliance costs, relative to 

the value of the asset, would cause any 

of the impacted firms to go into 

bankruptcy, but seek comment, with 

supportive justification, to determine 

the degree of hardship the proposed rule 

will have on these businesses. 

F. Competitive Analysis. 

In order to determine the competitive 

impact of the rule on small entities, we 

looked at the type of market for each of 

the affected small entity’s business. The 

following table details these results. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALSEP28SE06.297</GPH> EP28SE06.298</GPH>
56916 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Since markets of the 14 small entities 

cover 12 distinctly different areas, we 

believe the diversity of the companies’

business lines would not create a 

competitive disadvantage. From the 

Business Closure Analysis above, we do 

not believe this proposal will cause any 

of the impacted small entity firms who 

operate MU–2B’s to go into bankruptcy. 

We invite public comment on the 

potential competitive impact of the 

proposed rule. 

G. Disproportionality Analysis. 

Given the sparse firm and market data 

publicly available, we cannot discern 

the small firm competitive impact 

relative to large firms from this 

proposed rule. 

We invite public comment on the 

disproportional potential impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities versus 

large entities. Affected small entities are 

invited to discuss: 

(a) The size of their business and how 

the proposed regulations would result 

in a significant economic burden upon 

them as compared to larger 

organizations in the same business 

community; and 

(b) How the proposed regulations 

could be modified to take into account 

small entities’ differing needs or 

capabilities versus large entities. 

Comments received on regulatory 

flexibility issues are addressed in the 

statement of considerations for the final 

rule. 

H. Analysis of Alternatives. 

Alternative One 

The ‘‘baseline,’’ ‘‘do nothing,’’ or 

status quo alternative has no 

compliance costs but would not 

accomplish the intent of Congress’

recommendation. The FAA rejected this 

‘‘do nothing’’ alternative because the 

proposed rule would enhance safety and 

prevent more MU–2B related accidents. 

Alternative Two 

This alternative would prohibit all 

operations of the MU–2B series airplane 

within the National Airspace System. 

The FAA has determined that there is 

little justification to ground the 

airplane. The airplane meets its original 

type certification basis as found in three 

type certification analyses (Special 

Certification Reviews conducted in 

1984, 1997, and the Safety Evaluation of 

2005 that found that the airplane 

complies with the applicable 

certification regulations). 

Alternative Three 

This alternative would keep the 

proposed SFAR, except that it would 

require an aircraft type rating for the 

MU–2B, but remove requalification 

training. This alternative would not 

meet the FAA’s goal of ensuring that all 

MU–2B pilots receive training in the 

correct procedures for abnormal and 

emergency operations. 

Alternative Four 

This alternative would keep the 

proposed SFAR, and in addition, 

require a second pilot. Requiring a 

second pilot for all MU–2B airplanes 

would be a substantially more costly 

option than the proposed SFAR training 

and autopilot requirements (single-pilot 

IFR operations would be required to 

have a functioning autopilot). In 

addition, the FAA has determined that 

use of an autopilot provides a level of 

safety comparable to a two-pilot crew 

and therefore does not propose 

requiring a second crew member. The 

FAA invites comment on whether there 

are advantages to requiring two crew 

members that exceed the safety benefits 

of requiring an autopilot. An operator 

has the option of running a two-pilot 

crew to enhance safety, but the FAA 

would not require it. 

In summary, the FAA believes that 

this proposal would have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We were able to obtain 

employment and annual revenue data 

for 14 small entities that operated MU–

2B airplanes. The pilot training cost is 

estimated to be greater than two percent 

of annual revenues for three of these 

small entities. Therefore, the FAA 

certifies that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal 

agencies from establishing any 

standards or engaging in related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this proposed rule 

and determined that it responds to a 

domestic safety objective and is not 

considered an unnecessary barrier to 

trade. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALSEP28SE06.299</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 56917 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate. The requirements of 

Title II do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and therefore 

would not have federalism implications. 

Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the Administrator, when 

changing regulations in title 14 of the 

CFR in manner affecting intrastate 

aviation in Alaska, to consider the 

extent to which Alaska is not served by 

transportation modes other than 

aviation, and to establish such 

regulatory distinctions as he or she 

considers appropriate. The FAA 

therefore specifically requests 

comments on whether there is 

justification for applying the proposed 

rule differently in intrastate operations 

in Alaska. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this proposed 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 61 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Safety 

measures. 

14 CFR Part 91 

Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation 

safety, Freight, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 135 

Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, 

FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 

INSTRUCTORS 

1. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–

44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102–45103, 

45301–45302. 

2. Add Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation (SFAR) No. XX as follows: 

Special Federal Aviation Regulations. 

* * * * * 

SFAR No. XX—Mitsubishi MU–2B 

Series Airplane Special Training, 

Experience, and Operating 

Requirements 

Note: For the text of SFAR No. XX, see part 

91 of this chapter. 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

3. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 

40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44709, 

44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 

46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506–46507, 

47122, 47508, 47528–47531, articles 12 and 

29 of the Convention on International Civil 

Aviation (61 stat. 1180). 

4. Add SFAR No. XX to read as 

follows: 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

(SFAR) No. XX—Mitsubishi MU–2B 

Series Special Training, Experience, 

and Operating Requirements 

1. Applicability. This Special Federal 

Aviation Regulation (SFAR) applies to 

all persons who operate the MU–2B 

airplane including those who 

manipulate the controls, or act as pilotin-command. The proposed SFAR also 

applies to those persons who provide 

pilot training for the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane. The requirements in this 

SFAR are in addition to the 

requirements of 14 CFR parts 61, 91, 

and 135. 

2. Compliance. After March 27, 2007, 

no person may manipulate the controls, 

act as pilot-in-command, or provide 

pilot training for the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane unless that person meets 

the requirements of sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 

and 7, as applicable of this SFAR. 

3. Required Pilot Training. 

(a) No person may manipulate the 

controls or act as pilot-in-command of a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane for 

the purpose of flight unless the 

applicable requirements for ground and 

flight training on initial/transition, 

requalification, recurrent, or differences 

have been completed, as specified in 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU–2B 

Training Program, Part Number YET 

05301, dated July 27, 2006, Revision 1 

or a FAA-approved revision issued after 

the effective date of this SFAR. On 

completion of the training, that person’s 

logbook must be endorsed by a 

certificated flight instructor meeting the 

qualifications of section 5 of this SFAR. 

(b) No person may manipulate the 

controls or act as pilot-in-command of a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane for 

the purpose of flight unless that person 

completes annual recurrent pilot 

training on the Special Emphasis Items, 

pages 4 and 5, and all items listed in the 

Training Course Final Phase Check, 

Appendix A, as specified in Mitsubishi 

Heavy Industries MU–2B Training 

Program, Part Number YET 05301, dated 

July 27, 2006, Revision 1 or a FAAapproved revision issued after the 

effective date of this SFAR. That person 

must satisfactorily complete the annual 

training and that person’s logbook must 

be endorsed by a certificated flight 

instructor meeting the qualifications of 

section 5 of this SFAR. Satisfactory 

completion of the competency check 

required by 14 CFR 135.293 of that 

chapter within the preceding 12 

calendar months may not be substituted 

for the Mitsubishi MU–2B series 

airplane annual recurrent flight training 

of this paragraph. 

4. Aeronautical Experience. No 

person may act as pilot-in-command of 

a Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane for 

the purpose of flight unless that person 

holds an airplane category and multiengine land class rating, and has logged 

a minimum of 100 flight hours of pilotin-command time in multi-engine 

airplanes. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
56918 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

5. Instruction, Checking and 

Evaluation. 

(a) Flight Instructor (Airplane). No 

flight instructor may provide instruction 

or conduct a flight review in a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

unless that instructor meets the 

requirements of this section. 

(i) Each flight instructor who provides 

flight training in the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane must meet the pilot 

training requirements of paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of section 3 of this SFAR before 

giving flight instruction in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane. 

(ii) Each flight instructor who 

provides flight training in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must 

meet the currency requirements of 

paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 6 of this 

SFAR before giving flight instruction in 

the Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane. 

(iii) Each flight instructor who 

provides flight training in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must 

have—

(A) A minimum total pilot time of 

2,000 pilot-in-command hours, 

(B) 800 pilot-in-command hours in 

multiengine airplanes, and 

(C) 300 pilot-in-command hours in 

the Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane, 

50 of which must have been within the 

last 12 months. 

(b) Flight Instructor (Simulator/ Flight 

Training Device). No flight instructor 

may provide instruction for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

unless that instructor meets the 

requirements of this section. 

(i) Each flight instructor who provides 

flight training for the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane must meet the pilot 

training and documentation 

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

section 3 of this SFAR before giving 

flight instruction for the Mitsubishi 

MU–2B series airplane. 

(ii) Each flight instructor who 

provides flight training for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must 

meet the currency requirements of 

paragraph (c) of section 6 of this SFAR 

before giving flight instruction for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane. 

(iii) Each flight instructor who 

provides flight training for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must 

have—

(A) A minimum total pilot time of 

2000 pilot-in-command hours, 

(B) 800 pilot-in-command hours in 

multiengine airplanes, and 

(C) Within the last 12 months, either 

50 hours of Mitsubishi MU–2B series 

airplane pilot-in-command experience 

or 50 hours providing simulator or flight 

training device instruction for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B. 

(c) Checking and Evaluation. No 

person may provide checking or 

evaluation for the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane unless that person meets 

the requirements of this paragraph. 

(i) For the purpose of checking, 

designated pilot examiners, training 

center evaluators, and check airmen 

must have completed the appropriate 

training in the Mitsubishi MU–2B series 

airplane in accordance with paragraph 

(a) and (b), section 3 of this SFAR. 

(ii) For checking conducted in the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane, each 

designated pilot examiner and check 

airman must have 100 hours pilot-incommand flight time in the Mitsubishi 

MU–2B series airplane and maintain 

currency in accordance with section 6 of 

this SFAR. 

(d) Mandatory Training Procedures. 

(i) All pilot training conducted for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane must 

be completed in accordance with the 

procedures and techniques as described 

in the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU–

2B Training Program, Part Number YET 

05301, dated July 27, 2006, Revision 1 

or a FAA-approved revision issued after 

the effective date of this SFAR. 

(ii) All flight training conducted for 

the Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

must be completed using a Mitsubishi 

Heavy Industries MU–2B checklist 

accepted by the MU–2B Flight 

Standardization Board, or other MU–2B 

series airplane checklist that has been 

accepted by the MU–2B Flight 

Standardization Board, and described in 

paragraph (c), section 7 of this SFAR. 

6. Currency Requirements and Flight 

Review. 

(a) The landing currency requirements 

of § 61.57 of this chapter must be 

maintained in the Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane. Landings in other 

multiengine airplanes do not meet the 

landing currency requirements for the 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane. 

Landings in either short- or long-body 

Mitsubishi MU–2B model airplane may 

be credited toward landing currency in 

both MU–2B model groups. 

(b) Instrument experience obtained in 

other category and class of aircraft may 

be used to satisfy the instrument 

currency requirements of § 61.57 of this 

chapter for the Mitsubishi MU–2B series 

airplane. 

(c) Satisfactory completion of a flight 

review to satisfy the requirements of 

§ 61.56 of this chapter is valid for 

operation of a Mitsubishi MU–2B series 

airplane only if that flight review is 

conducted in a Mitsubishi MU–2B 

series airplane. The flight review for 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplanes must 

include the Special Emphasis Items, 

pages 4 and 5, and all items listed in 

Training Course Final Phase Check, 

Appendix A, of Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries MU–2B Training Program, 

Part Number YET 05301, dated July 27, 

2006, Revision 1 or a FAA-approved 

revision issued after the effective date of 

this SFAR. 

7. Operating Requirements. 

(a) No person may operate a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane with 

a single pilot under instrument flight 

rules (IFR), in IFR conditions, or night 

visual flight rule (VFR) conditions, 

unless that airplane has a functioning 

autopilot. 

(b) No person may operate a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

unless a copy of the appropriate 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Airplane 

Flight Manual, as described in Table 1 

of this SFAR, or a FAA-approved 

revision issued after the effective date of 

this SFAR, is carried on board the 

airplane and is accessible during each 

flight at the pilot station of the airplane. 

(c) No person may operate a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

unless a copy of a Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries MU–2B checklist accepted by 

the MU–2B Flight Standardization 

Board, or other MU–2B series airplane 

checklist that has been accepted by the 

MU–2B Flight Standardization Board, is 

carried on board the airplane and used 

by the flight crewmembers when 

operating the airplane. 

(d) No person may operate a 

Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplane 

contrary to the procedures and 

techniques within Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries MU–2B Training Program, 

Part number YET 05301, dated July 27, 

2006, Revision 1 or a FAA-approved 

revision issued after the effective date of 

this SFAR. 

8. Incorporation by Reference. The 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU–2B 

Training Program, Part number YET 

05301, dated July 27, 2006, Revision 1, 

and the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 

Airplane Flight Manuals, as described 

in Table 1 of this SFAR are incorporated 

by reference. This incorporation by 

reference was approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. Section 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. The Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries MU–2B Training Program 

and Airplane Flight Manuals are 

distributed by Turbine Aircraft Services, 

Inc. Copies may be obtained from 

Turbine Aircraft Services Inc., 4550 

Jimmy Doolittle Drive, Addison, Texas 

75001, USA. Copies may be inspected at 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Management Facility, Room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001 or at the 

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 188 / Thursday, September 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 56919 

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, 

Washington, DC. 

9. Expiration. This SFAR will remain 

in effect until further notice. 

TABLE 1.—DOCUMENT NUMBER AND REVISION LEVEL FOR MU–2B SERIES AIRPLANE—AIRPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL

Model Type certificate 

Applicable AFM revision level 

Document No. Revision No. Date issued 

MU–2B–60 ......................................................................................... A10SW ............. MR–0273–1 ...... 14 July 11, 2005. 

MU–2B–40 ......................................................................................... A10SW ............. MR–0271–1 ...... 12 July 11, 2005. 

MU–2B–36A ...................................................................................... A10SW ............. MR–0196–1 ...... 14 July 11, 2005. 

MU–2B–36 ......................................................................................... A2PC ................ YET74122A ...... 12 August 9, 2004. 

MU–2B–35 ......................................................................................... A2PC ................ YET70186A ...... 13 August 9, 2004. 

MU–2B–30 ......................................................................................... A2PC ................ YET69013A ...... 13 August 9, 2004. 

MU–2B–26A ...................................................................................... A10SW ............. MR–0194–1 ...... 12 July 11, 2005. 

MU–2B–26 ......................................................................................... A2PC ................ YET74129A ...... 12 August 9, 2004. 

MU–2B–26 ......................................................................................... A10SW ............. MR–0160–1 ...... 10 July 11, 2005. 

MU–2B–25 ......................................................................................... A10SW ............. MR–0156–1 ...... 10 July 11, 2005. 

MU–2B–25 ......................................................................................... A2PC ................ YET71367A ...... 12 August 9, 2004. 

MU–2B–20 ......................................................................................... A2PC ................ YET68034A ...... 12 August 9, 2004. 

MU–2B–15 ......................................................................................... A2PC ................ YET68038A ...... 12 August 9, 2004. 

MU–2B–10 ......................................................................................... A2PC ................ YET86400 ........ 12 August 9, 2004. 

MU–2B ............................................................................................... A2PC ................ YET67026A ...... 12 August 9, 2004. 

PART 135—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTERS AND 

ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND 

RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON 

BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT. 

5. The authority citation for part 135 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 44113, 

44701’44702, 44705, 44709, 44711–44713, 

44715–44717, 44722. 

6. Add Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation (SFAR) No. XX as follows: 

Special Federal Aviation Regulations 

* * * * * 

SFAR No. XX—Mitsubishi MU–2B 

Series Airplane Special Training, 

Experience, and Operating 

Requirements 

Note: For the text of SFAR No. XX, see part 

91 of this chapter. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

21, 2006. 

James J. Ballough, 

Director, Flight Standards Service, AFS–1. 

[FR Doc. 06–8310 Filed 9–22–06; 4:03 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

36 CFR Part 1280 

[NARA–06–0005] 

RIN 3095–AB55 

Use of NARA Facilities 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The proposed rule would 

revise NARA’s policy on the inspection 

of personal property in the possession of 

a contractor, employee, student intern, 

visitor, volunteer or other person on 

NARA properties. Because NARA’s 

current regulations apply specifically 

only to visitors on NARA property, the 

revised rule clarifies that all persons 

arriving on, working at, visiting, or 

departing from NARA property are 

subject to the inspection of their 

personal property. The proposed rule 

would also amend NARA’s current 

regulations to include additional 

properties under NARA control. This 

rule will affect members of the public, 

members of Federal agencies, NARA 

employees, NARA contract-employees 

and NARA volunteers. 

DATES: Comments are due by November 

27, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: NARA invites interested 

persons to submit comments on this 

proposed rule. Please include ‘‘Attn: 

RIN 3095–AB55’’ and your name and 

mailing address in your comments. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: Submit comments by facsimile 

transmission to 301–837–0319. 

• Mail: Send comments to 

Regulations Comments Desk (NPOL), 

Room 4100, Policy and Planning Staff, 

National Archives and Records 

Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, 

College Park, MD 20740–6001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

comments to 8601 Adelphi Road, 

College Park, MD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Landou at 301–837–1899 or fax 

number 301–837–0293. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Archivist prescribes rules that 

ensure the safety and preservation of the 

holdings subject to NARA’s authority. 

NARA has a staff of over 3,000 people 

nationwide and receives over three 

million visitors to its facilities. With a 

combined volume of 27 million cubic 

feet of traditional holdings and 500,000 

artifacts, the challenges of safeguarding 

the holdings are both difficult and 

complex. 

Incidents of theft by researchers and 

unauthorized removal of documents by 

former NARA staff have resulted in 

heightened security precautions in 

NARA facilities. Additional safeguards 

implemented during the past year 

include background checks for 

volunteers working with original 

records and artifacts, closed circuit 

video cameras in all regional archives 

and Presidential library research rooms, 

and the opening of a classified research 

room at the National Archives Building 

in Washington, DC. NARA regulations 

concerning conduct of NARA 

contractors, employees, student interns, 

visitors and volunteers are being revised 

to strengthen the current policies. 

The following section of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION discusses 

the regulations that we are proposing be 

revised. 

This proposed rule clarifies NARA’s 

policy regarding inspection of personal 

property in the possession of a 

contractor, employee, student intern, 

visitor, volunteer or other person on 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS